Talk:Types of evolution

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I removed it since the change to types of biological evolution was moved a month or so ago.--Able806 09:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Chemical Evolution

This has been documented nuclear fusion is a prime example of how hydrogen can change to a heavier element and it does occur naturaly. --Able806 09:01, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Having a closer look at this article list, "Chemical evolution" is actually used as a synonym for abiogenesis. Are the terms in this list standard ones? Philip J. Rayment 11:06, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
I would have to say they are not the standard terms. Organic Evolution by the definition on the page, would be abiogenesis and chemical evolution would be nuclear chemistry, although I do not believe that these terms are widely used professionally. I am not sure what Ed was trying to accomplish but the micro and macro evolution terms would be under biological evolution as a whole, thus being redundant in this article.--Able806 11:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
These references ([1][2][3][4][5]) all use the term "chemical evolution" as either a synonym for abiogenesis or something leading to abiogenesis. The Wikipedia one does say that the term has two meanings (and I ignored other links that were clearly talking only about "evolution" of elements). His purpose in distinguishing micro- from macro-evolution would be to separate one often considered unobserved from one often considered observed. Leading creationists discourage making that particular distinction, as it can be misleading if not incorrect and is often poorly defined. Philip J. Rayment 11:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
I would have to agree, the divide between chemists and biologists is very large. Terminology is not often in sync with the different fields. Perhaps we should just remove chemical evolution from the article since I inserted abiogenesis? There is no need to repeat terms.--Able806 16:51, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
On the other hand, we should be using terms that are in common (or fairly-common) use.
Also, if I understand it correctly, the other meaning of chemical evolution, like biological evolution, is not just that one chemical can change into another, but that all elements "evolved" from hydrogen. So although it may be correct to say that we've observed hydrogen turning into other elements, the "chemical evolution family tree" has not been observed.
I guess that Ed Poor's purpose was to point out that "evolution" does not refer to just biological evolution, but that it is used in other ways also.
Philip J. Rayment 05:30, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I would have to agree about the use of correct terms. As for the chemical evolution, the process to form one element from another has been observed in nature all the way to the formation of iron. To say it is only due to hydrgen would be infered since it is just the addition of a hydrogen's mass that changes one element to a larger one. Considering / forming we are still discovering elements, there should be no absolutes for this term.
I am glad that Ed was seeking to show that evolution is used in many ways but would a definition of the word evolution not have been simpler that trying to list all the different phrases that evolution would be a part of?--Able806 09:20, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
We already have Definition of evolution, but that's mainly concerned with biological evolution. But rather than a list, what this should have is a paragraph on each.
I know that I've often seen anti-creationists criticising creationists for lumping things like the Big Bang in with evolution. They overlook that "evolution" is used of more than just biological evolution. That I suspect is the point of this article.
You say that the process has been observed in nature all the way to the formation of iron. Could you enlighten me on this please? I've little doubt that it's been observed in a laboratory, but wouldn't have expected it in nature. Even so, the fact that such a range or sequence of changes has been observed still doesn't mean that that's how all the elements came about, which is what I meant by the "family tree" reference.
Philip J. Rayment 11:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I would agree, having this article broken into paragraphs for each phrase would make it easier. I also do not like the general use of evolution to imply biological evolution. I use the term evolution when talking about a chemical reaction evolving a product from the reagents.
The observed natural formation of larger elements is found in high pressure, high gravity situations. If you look at some research from astrophysists there are a few papers discussing the formation of larger elements, up to iron in the formation of stars. From my understanding they derive the elements from the spectrograph of the star. This has only been observed in a few cases where they have seen a star develop. In all cases the process is nuclear fusion intitated by gravity. I will see if I can dig up any papers, it has been many years since I looked at this, so I may be wrong.
Personaly, I think chemical evolution should be tossed. Unless we clearly define it so it will not be confused with cosmic evolution or abiogenesis.--Able806 11:46, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) In a sense, there's nothing wrong with a list as a starting point, but by the same token, there's no need for it to stay that way as the page is developed.

Yes, please see if you can dig up any papers that show this being observed as a star develops. Unless there are very-quick-growing stars, we simply have not been observing them long enough to actually see a star develop (to any significant extent). That is, I'm sure that the claims of observing this are really cases of observing different stars in what are believed to be different stages of development, not of actually observing a star develop.

Philip J. Rayment 06:10, 13 June 2008 (EDT)